GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 26 Jan 2020, 11:48

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4310
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2015, 11:57
4
32
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:30) correct 45% (02:37) wrong based on 1133 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.

Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.

Day 2 Question of the Verbal Contest: Race Against the GMAT Club Timer

_________________
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 820
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2015, 22:15
3
2

Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.

Official Explanation
Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: Transporting nuke waste safe in Yardow -> Should be allowed in general
Missing Information: Yardow is a relevant example
Goal: We need to find an option that shows there is something than usual about Yardow such that it would be rendered an irrelevant example.

Nobody’s talking about transporting nuclear waste by train so a discussion about the logistics involved in train transport of nuclear waste is entirely irrelevant. This is a classic out of focus option. It’s just not clear at all how this information relates in any way to the claim that trucks should be allowed to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. For all we know, transporting this waste by train is even more dangerous than it is by truck.

We have no way to know whether transferring reporting duties would’ve affected the results. It would be speculative at best to presume that’s the case. For all we know, the standards and execution quality remained exactly the same despite the transfer of reporting duties to a different regulatory agency.

This is the statistical runner-up option. At first glance option C appears to show that something is unusual about Yardow; however, the license requirement could be standard across the entire nation. There’s no way to know that there’s anything that's usual about this licensing requirement. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Therefore it’s not clear whether C would point out a relative difference in Yardow Prefecture’s requirements, and this option does not clearly weaken. Compare that to option D, which points to an array of factors that make Yardow special, and therefore likely an unfair example to use in the case to allow truck borne nuclear waste.

Yes! This is the correct option because it reveals that something is definitely specific about Yardow’s restrictions. The roads in the Yardow example are ONLY travelled on by vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds, and by specially licensed drivers. Taking every other vehicle off the road and having these trucks operated by specially licensed drivers on these exclusive roads dramatically reduces the risk of an incident happening. If we were to refer to the Yardow case to justify truck driven nuclear power plant waste in general, then we’d be relying on an unrealistic, unrepresentative set of circumstances, thus dramatically weakening the argument to allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.

This option also gets some interest; however, there’s no way to assume that for nuclear waste transport this information is even relevant. The option just states what is typically the case. With nuclear waste, how would we know that this information is even relevant to us? Would two trucks or just one truck be used? We have no idea. Furthermore, it’s unclear how the use of one truck or two trucks would even impact the safety record. In other words there’s just no way to know the relevance of option E.

Bigger GMAT Picture: If you find yourself vacillating between two options, scour the differences with an emphasis on WHAT's WRONG. Otherwise, it can be all too tempting to rationalize an incorrect option that's well-disguised.
_________________
"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

The Course Used By GMAT Club Moderators To Earn 750+

souvik101990 Score: 760 Q50 V42 ★★★★★
ENGRTOMBA2018 Score: 750 Q49 V44 ★★★★★
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 137
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2015, 14:52
6
First time I eliminated one of two options based on the degree with which they weaken the argument.

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.
Train is not relevant to argument.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.
No info provided about different regulatory agency to link this choice to argument

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.
This hints that YP case is an exception and weakens the general claim

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.
This includes C and adds the roads and difference in weight points so as I said further weakens and the one I selected

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.
This is on same line - pointing that YP example is an exception but D includes this point also
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2014
Posts: 4
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2015, 23:52
4
Answer D. Premise: base on safety record in Yardow, they conclude that it's possible to allow the trucks. Weaken by finding something special in Yardow' situation makes it not applicable for all the rest place to use the truck safely to transport nuclear waste.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1096
Location: India
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2015, 22:27
2
Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

conclusions: Critics claim use of trucks is not safe. They are not correct or mistaken.
weaken pre-thinking: support critics argument.

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.(No way this supports critics arg instead introduces unnecessary info reg trains)

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.
(Completely out of scope-recent shift should not affect the info)

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.(Does not help in any way since it is not important to what license they possess.)

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.
(This weakens critics argument since roads are restricted to only trucks possibility of accidents is less.)

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.(This explains that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument.)
Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2015, 01:58
2
I thought this way..

Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot - because this is eliminating a possibility that trains might have a disadvantage that trucks would be needed in this case for delivering the waste-- .

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency. out of scope

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.
- this strengthens by saying that there is a definite possibilty about the report being true and if this can be implemented then all drivers can get the license and trucks would prove as a good means of transport.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.-- same as C. this is also giving a strong point to address the validity of the report

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load. - this is out of scope.
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2015
Posts: 29
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
WE: Brand Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 16:34
1
Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

conclusions: Critics claim use of trucks is not safe. They are not correct or mistaken.
weaken pre-thinking: support critics argument.

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.(No way this supports critics arg instead introduces unnecessary info reg trains)

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.
(Completely out of scope-recent shift should not affect the info)

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.(Does not help in any way since it is not important to what license they possess.)

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.
(This weakens critics argument since roads are restricted to only trucks possibility of accidents is less.)

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.(This explains that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument.)
Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 57
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2017, 08:15
1
Hi chetan2u,

my reasoning is inline with Nevernevergiveup 's that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument

But OA is not E.

i fail to understand why E is wrong.

Requesting you to clarify my understanding.

Raju
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 8336
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2017, 09:14
gvvsnraju@1 wrote:
Hi chetan2u,

my reasoning is inline with Nevernevergiveup 's that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument

But OA is not E.

i fail to understand why E is wrong.

Requesting you to clarify my understanding.

Raju

Hi..

first lets see what are we to weaken..
Quote:
It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary

so we have to weaken the safety records of Yardow to prove that the trucks are not the safest bet..

E is
E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load

It tells us that typically >80000 loads are divided into two parts.
Now reasons why it should NOT be the answer..
1) The trucks of Y are taking >80000 and have a PROVEN safety record, so the Q of dividing into two parts does not effect the SAFETY records of Y company and thus does not effect the argument - MAIN reason
2) Also it talks of typical truck load but the vehicles used for transporting may be different. It never mentions they are the SAME.
3) Even if for a moment we take it as same, it never specifies it is dangerous. We are assuming so. it may be just as a rule or for proper packing.
4) And finally even if we take it as dangerous, the Q is NOT about typical trucks, it is about the POINT (1) above- Safety record of Y, which have been sited as the reason for using trucks.

Now what does D do.
D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

It tells us that reason for SAFETY records is that there are different infrastructure in Y for these roads, which may not be available here.
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8118
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2019, 06:44
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste ar   [#permalink] 23 Nov 2019, 06:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by